From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/6187 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Toby Bartels Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: Is equality evil? Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 01:28:29 -0700 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Toby Bartels NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1284773380 26699 80.91.229.12 (18 Sep 2010 01:29:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 01:29:40 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Sat Sep 18 03:29:39 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from smtpy.mta.ca ([138.73.1.139]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OwmFH-0000oj-31 for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:29:39 +0200 Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:46502) by smtpy.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OwmEA-0003DY-Oi; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 22:28:30 -0300 Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OwmE5-00011l-T6 for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 22:28:26 -0300 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:6187 Archived-At: Thomas Streicher wrote in small part (in a post about fibrations): >Even in intensional type theory there is a notion of equality. Elsewhere in the same thread, Vaughan Pratt wrote: >Theorem. Equality if and only if the diagonal. and concluded that equality is no more or less evil than contraction. This depends on what kind of type theory you are using! In the intentional type theory of Martin-Loef, for example, there is a notion of equality (or identity) at each type. Heck, there's even a notion of identity of types! However, one can certainly consider type theory without identity types. I would suggest the internal language of a Heyting 2-pretopos (although that depends on what one takes this language to be). Logic should be the servant of intuition, not the master. If some category theorists have the intuition (and we do) that it is meaningless to speak of equality of objects, then it's the job of the logician to find a formal language which expresses only what these category theorists find meaningful. If they haven't done so, then this is something to work on, not an argument that the motivating intuitions are invalid. There is something else that logic can do, however: it can show that identity follows from something else. Vaughn's theorem (cited above) purports to do this, but it is based on the assumption that every operation between types (in this case, the diagonal Delta_X: X -> X x X) has (as "image" or "range") a predicate on the target type (in this case, the identity predicate on X x X). So if our intuition suggests that operations have ranges, then we must accept that we have identity predicates too (assuming that we can construct the diagonal operation using contraction). But my intution suggests no such thing for arbitrary types (such as might be suitable as the type of objects of a category); naively, given an operation f: X -> Y, the range predicate (ran f) on Y would hold at those objects of Y with the form f(a) for some object a of X. But given an object b of Y, how do you determine if it has this form? If we already had an identity predicate =_Y on Y, then we could do this: (ran f)(b) if and only if (for some x: A) (b =_Y f(a)). But in general, I don't see any meaning for the range of an operation. In fact, since I'm happy to use contraction in general mathematics, I would phrase Vaughn's theorem as follows: >Theorem. Equality if and only if ranges. and conclude that equality is no more or less evil than ranges. But I don't believe in either of these, in general; that is, I believe in the usefulness of types that lack these. (Quiz: Given two arbitrary sets, say the set of natural numbers and the set of positive integers, how do you decide if they are equal? Similarly, given a set and an arbitrary operation on sets, say the set of rational numbers and the operation of cartesian square, how do you decide if the set belongs to the range of the operation? Or more relevantly, given the diagonal operation on sets, how do you decide if a pair of sets belongs to its range?) --Toby [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]